John Dean, a political figure known more for his past than his present, has urged President Biden to inflate his pardon list in a calculated attempt to quash any potential retaliatory actions from Donald Trump. Dean insists a proactive move to ‘blanket pardon’ DOJ officials who investigated or prosecuted Trump may be a prerequisite for sidestepping Trump’s retribution if he should reclaim the Executive Office. One might ask if this is sound advice or a desperate call for relevancy.
Dean’s comment emerged shortly after Biden spontaneous announcement that he had pardoned his son, Hunter, from serious federal charges including tax evasion and firearm convictions. The absurdity reached its peak when Biden shamed the investigation and proceeding judicial action against his son, labeling it ‘infected’ by politics and a ‘miscarriage of justice.’
Following this strange episode of presidential power, the immediate termination of the remaining proceedings of Hunter Biden’s firearm case occurred. This move was blatantly in conflict with Biden’s previous promises that asserted he would maintain impartiality and abstain from using his executive powers to pardon Hunter. The majority sought solace in expecting truth over a broken promise.
It’s almost as if Dean believes that extending a plethora of pardons to Trump’s perceived enemies can halt the potential retribution when he regains power. The peculiar notion could quickly insult those individuals’ sense of justice, mistaking a pre-emptive pardon as a blatant act of degradation.
The critics of this administration fear that once the former president retakes the mantle, he will make use of his presidential powers to settle past scores with those who had initiated or partaken in investigations against him during his tenure. But, one might ask – is it any wonder, given the vitriolic rhetoric and actions employed against him?
Interestingly, Trump has shown a shift in tone during subsequent public appearances throughout and after his 2024 presidential campaign. Evidently, he has increasingly offered olive branches even to those who have been his fiercest critics. Whereas the Biden administration has chosen chaos and reproachful tabloid-style politics in its approach.
The rather fanciful talk of issuing blanket pardons only indicates the severity of systemic misconduct during the Trump investigations. For Dean to suggest this means admitting that the investigations employed questionable methods demanding protection from future scrutiny. Ironically, it reinforces the very concerns Trump and his supporters have passionately articulated.
Supporters of such broad pardon actions argue that this approach will safeguard the institutions and individuals from a potential political backlash. But one has to wonder if this is a cynical ploy to evade accountability rather than a well-intentioned protection necessity.
The lost trust and transparency are a direct result of the widespread concealed political maneuvers. Inevitably, such moves cast substantial doubts upon the integrity of these institutions and officials. The considered tactic of executive pardons to sidestep prospective reprieve is nothing short of a desperate attempt to bury the past.
These doubts may foster rifts within the already divided political landscape, fueling antagonism further. Sowing distrust in public service institutions can only mean weakening democratic principles at their core, leading to adverse long-term outcomes.
The spectacle of Dean’s plea and Biden’s demonstrated leniency toward family does not bode well for the promise of objectivity and justice under this administration. It simply underscores their inclination towards self-serving manipulation and a certain egregiously partisan view.
The fundamental impetus behind Dean’s proposal appears to circumvent retribution. However, it also inadvertently substantiates the narrative that these investigations were partisan in nature, warranting such drastic protective steps.
Biden’s pardon of his son and Dean’s proposal reveals a profound disconnection between this administration’s actions and ethical norms, which is a burgeoning concern. It lays bare the partisanship and favoritism that run rampant throughout this administration.
Some wonder if Trump, if he returns to office, will use his presidential powers to channel rightful scrutiny towards those who sought to scrutinize him. If we weigh the evidence, there is an indication Trump has extended goodwill to people who have bitterly opposed him.
The real concern here isn’t the potential for retribution against Trump’s perceived enemies, but the fear of a displaced transparency where justice is only a card to be played in a game of political survival. The circus of pardons and pre-emptive protections leaves the watchers wondering what circus act comes next.